fbpx

coronavirus

It’s actually great to be a consumer in the time of coronavirus

One idea I’ve seen thrown around a little too much on Twitter and across the Internet lately has been that consumers are somehow living in a doomsday scenario during the coronavirus pandemic.

Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus points to “shortages, price gouging, and scams” that are popping up in response to the virus.

No doubt, there is a lot of economic uncertainty when it comes to restaurants, bars, and establishments that serve the public. There’s even legitimate panic-buying of toilet paper that is sparking enough memes to keep you busy until the end of March. And no one can seem to get enough hand sanitizer.

But is it really so bad for consumers?

Barring a future moratorium on commerce, online or otherwise, people are still able to get the products they need.

We have access to food delivery on-demand, Amazon is still arriving at our doorsteps, and stores are stocking up faster than we’ve ever seen. We’ve never been more equipped and technologically ready to stare down a crisis.

When products run out in some stores, neighborhood corner stores offer their own, sometimes at market-adjusted prices during a time of very high demand. Those are our markets at work, and we should celebrate that.

There are false claims in advertising, but most large retailers are actively shutting these product descriptions down. That’s a good thing. The same can be said for scammers who are trying to cash in on the misinformation.

But, if you live on Twitter and you’ve seen photos of empty shelves at Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, you’d think it was the end of the world. Until the next day, when those shelves were easily restocked.

“I think the fact that they’re going to shut school down caused people to consider ramping up their grocery-buying habits because their daily lives are going to change,” said Brandon Scholz, president & CEO of the Wisconsin Grocers Association.

As Scholz witnessed across the state of Wisconsin, there have been shortages of some products in various stores. But that has more to do with immediate and spiking demand rather than low supply on behalf of producers.

Grocery stores are staying stocked and replenishing their supplies at a rapid pace. But they need time to adjust to the demand that is inflated at peak times. The domestic supply chains in the United States remain vibrant and are delivering, and they’re bouncing back when we need them most. Could the same be said for countries with extreme price controls and rationing?

But what about the $220 bottles of Lysol on Amazon or eBay? And the hand sanitizer and cleaning wipes now worth 50% or 100% more than their normal price?

States like California and New York are stepping in to stop the “price gouging” as they believe it’s unfair and immoral in a time of crisis. California won’t allow any business to raise prices on items more than 10% than pre-crisis – even if demand is outstripping supply thousands of times over.

But fluctuating prices in a time of panic buying are actually what you want because they help limit hoarding and best allocate resources where they’re both scarce and necessary. It’s well known that price gouging laws have the effect of distorting real prices and actually causing more shortages. Just remember runs for gasoline during Hurricane Katrina and similar natural disasters.

Many consumer advocates stand in favor of anti-price gauging laws because they assume they protect the consumer, but they actually end up doing the opposite. They distort prices and lead to shortages. That’s why economists are pretty solid on this issue and oppose all attempts at anti-price gouging laws.

Here is Duke University professor Michael Munger on anti-price gouging laws:

So while there may be temporary panic taking place online, in the real world, our small businesses and entrepreneurs are delivering for consumers. Food is available and plentiful, all kinds of products are stocked and ready for purchase.

There have been mistakes and it hasn’t been perfect. But markets have delivered. And consumers know it, even if they won’t’ admit it.

Instead of succumbing to the panic and thinking the worst, we should actually be stepping back and looking at the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in and marvel at how well our institutions and businesses are doing in giving us what we need. There is plenty of uncertainty, but the creative people out there who provide solutions are doing just that.

We, as consumers, can be confident in their efforts.

Stuck at home? We should be able to have our alcohol delivered

This week, millions of Americans will be following the advice of their public health agencies and staying home to prevent the further spread of the novel coronavirus.

Where possible, many will have food and drinks delivered to help support the thousands of restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores that have been ordered to temporarily close or limit hours.

Americans in multiple states will be prohibited, however, from having any alcohol hit their doorstep. 

That’s due to arcane laws on the books in several states that don’t allow certain alcohol – beer, wine, and spirits – to be shipped directly to consumers.

Alabama, Oklahoma, and Utah ban all alcohol shipments to consumers, whereas most others only allow wine shipments, shipments of alcohol after it has been purchased physically in a store, or from wineries located in-state.

Only Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Nebraska, and New Hampshire allow consumers to purchase alcohol online and have it shipped to their residences.

Now is as good a time as any to consider changing these laws and empowering consumers to receive alcohol at home just like any other product.

Social distancing is here and millions of people are staying home to avoid spreading coronavirus. But if you’re unlucky enough to live in a state with strict alcohol laws, you won’t be able to ship a bottle of wine, a six-pack, or your favorite bourbon to your address. And that’s beyond ridiculous.

Improvements in technology and mobile apps have connected millions to stores and marketplaces that ship products to our doors relatively quickly.

Bans on shipping alcohol are leftover policies from Prohibition that deprive us of choice. These bans will only exacerbate the economic damage caused by coronavirus.

In the 21st century, we should no longer have antiquated alcohol laws that restrict our choices, reduce commerce, and treat adults more like children. Let’s legalize alcohol shipments.

Fight Viruses by releasing the Gene Scissors: What is Gene Editing and why should we get excited about it?

Understanding gene editing with comic book figures

Humanity is currently facing a huge challenge imposed by the Coronavirus. Borders are being shut down, planes grounded, and factories closed. At the same time, scientists and public health professionals are working on tests, treatments, and vaccines to soon provide a medical response. Coping with corona might be one of the largest tests humans have faced in the past decades but it won’t be the last virus we need to defeat. It is time to embrace bioscience and allow more research and applications of genetic alteration methods.

For the layman, all this technobabble about mutagenesis and genetic engineering is difficult to comprehend and it took me personally a good amount of reading to start grasping what different methods exist and how these can massively improve our quality of life.

Let’s first look at the four most common ways to alter the genes of a plant or animal: 

  • Dr. Xaver – Mutations per se just happen regularly in nature – This is how some amino acids ended up being humans a billion years later. Biological evolution can only happen thanks to mutations. Mutations in nature happen randomly or are caused by exogenous factors such as radiation (e.g. sun). For the comic book readers among us, X-men have mutations that (in most cases) occurred randomly.
  • The Hulk – Mutation through exposure (mutagens): One of the most common ways to manipulate seeds is exposing them to radiation and hoping for positive mutations (e.g. higher pest resistance). This method is very common since the 1950s and a very inaccurate shotgun approach aiming to make crops more resistant or palatable. It requires thousands of attempts to get a positive result. This method is widely used and legal in nearly every country. In our comic book universe, the Hulk is a good example of mutations caused by radiation.
  • Spiderman – Genetically Modified Organisms (transgenic GMO): This often-feared procedure of creating GMOs is based on inserting the genes of one species into the genes of another. In most cases, GMO crops have been injected with a protein of another plant or bacteria that makes the crop grow faster or be more resistant towards certain diseases. Other examples can be seen in crossing salmon with tilapia fish which makes the salmon grow twice as fast. Spiderman being bitten by a spider and suddenly being able to climb skyscrapers due to his enhanced spider-human (transgenic) DNA is an example from the comicverse. 
  • GATTACA/Wrath of Khan – Gene Editing (the scissors): The latest and most precise way of altering an organism’s genes is so-called Gene Editing. In contrast to traditional GMOs, genes are not being implanted from another organism but changed within the organism due to a precise method of either deactivating certain genes or adding them. 

This can be even done in grown humans that are alive, which is a blessing for everyone who suffers from genetic disorders. We are able to “repair” genes in live organisms. Gene editing is also thousands of times more accurate than just bombarding seeds with radiation. Some applied examples are deactivating the gene responsible for generating gluten in wheat: The result is gluten-free wheat. There are several methods that achieve this. One of the most popular ones these days is the so-called CRISPR Cas-9. These ‘scissors’ are usually reprogrammed bacteria that transmit the new gene information or deactivate defunct or unwanted genes. Many science fiction novels and movies show a future in which we can deactivate genetic defects and cure humans from terrible diseases. Some examples of stories in which CRISPR-like techniques have been used are movies such as GATTACA, Star Trek’s Wrath of Khan, or the Expanse series in which gene editing plays a crucial role in growing crops in space.

What does this have to do with the Coronavirus?

Synthetic biologists have started using CRISPR to synthetically create parts of the coronavirus in an attempt to launch a vaccine against this lung disease and be able to mass-produce it very quickly. In combination with computer simulations and artificial intelligence, the best design for such a vaccine is calculated on a computer and then synthetically created. This speeds up vaccine development and cuts it from years to merely months. Regulators and approval bodies have shown that in times of crisis they can also rapidly approve new testing and vaccination procedures which usually require years of back and forth with agencies such as the FDA?

CRISPR also allows the ‘search’ for specific genes, also genes of a virus. This helped researchers to build fast and simple testing procedures to test patients for corona.

In the long term, gene editing might allow us to increase the immunity of humans by altering our genes and making us more resistant to viruses and bacteria. 

This won’t be the last crisis

While the coronavirus seems to really test our modern society, we also need to be aware that this won’t be the last pathogen that has the potential to kill millions. If we are unlucky, corona might mutate quickly and become harder to fight. The next dangerous virus, fungus, or bacteria is probably around the corner. Hence we need to embrace the latest inventions of biotechnology and not block genetic research and the deployment of its findings.

Right now a lot of red tape and even outright bans are standing between lifesaving innovations such as CRISPR and patients around the world. We need to rethink our hostility towards genetic engineering and embrace it. To be frank: We are in a constant struggle to fight newly occurring diseases and need to be able to deploy state of the art human answers to this.

Millennials and Your Retirement Accounts: Keep Calm and Carry On

It’s here.

Whether it was Tom Hanks contracting the novel coronavirus, or the shutting down of most major sports league events in an effort to avoid further infections, the pandemic has arrived.

We’ve been speaking about this for weeks on Consumer Choice Radio – at first, the story was about the lies and deceptions of the Chinese Communist Party in the city of Wuhan, where coronavirus first broke out.

Now, it’s about the economic and social toll it will take on billions throughout the globe, and the measures taken by governments to reduce the possibility of further community spread.

Many of you may be working from home now, or quarantined without an opportunity to work.

Most of us will use that time to tune into the news: TV, radio, Internet, and anything else you can get your hands on. And while some of that will be useful, there is nothing positive to be gained from watching the financial news.

Of course, we’re dealing with a Black Swan of a situation: no one saw this coming, and now the markets are reacting.

But if you’re a millennial worker and you’re watching the value of your retirement accounts like your 401(K) flutter like a clipped butterfly, you shouldn’t.

Now is exactly the wrong time to think about trading your positions and investments for cash. And that’s not financial advice, it’s commonsense.

We should keep in mind that the S&P 500 Index (a stock market index of 500 large U.S. companies) has a 7.9% average annual yield – and that’s with all the dips, crashes, recessions, and everything else we’ve seen over the past few decades. The long trend is growth, no matter the news of the day.

The average annual return over any 20-year period is 7.19% (including dividends).

On this chart, you can see the return of each 20-year period (starting from Jan 1950-Jan 1970 until Mar 1995 – Mar 2015).

Our generation is actually quite good at saving for retirement, diversifying more than the baby boomers, so that should position us quite well.

Whatever the impact will be on the S&P or the NASDAQ the next few weeks, it’s bad news bears – for now. But the world will soon get back to normal. Extreme measures are being taken now so they don’t have to be taken later. That’s why we have to Keep Calm and Carry On.

It’s tempting for many young workers to see red arrows pointing downwards and sell, sell, sell on their retirement accounts, but that’s wrong.

We’re living in a temporary moment of extraordinary means and measures. But it’ll soon pass.

Businesses will open back up and serve thirsty, hungry, and demanding customers. Travel will kick back up as people need to get on with their lives. The wedding planners and bakers and baseball stars and bank tellers will be back in their work outfits before we know it.

And once that happens, once the virus has been contained and people feel safe and confident enough to engage in normal commerce, the market will creep back up. The losses of today will be the gains of tomorrow.

That’s why it’s vital to wait it out – don’t become the sucker of the season who sold everything because the news said so.

We’re still living in the great times humanity has ever produced. We’re richer, healthier, live longer, have more information at our fingertips, more material wealth, and can communicate with dozens of people instantaneously with a moment’s notice.

We mustn’t succumb to the fear, and we can’t throw away everything we’ve built up when one small wrench gets thrown our way. Keep Calm, Carry On, and continue saving.

And while you’re self-quarantining, why don’t you listen to the backlog of Consumer Choice Radio episodes? They’re just waiting for you, right now, right here. Or maybe on Spotify. Or Youtube.

DIE WELTGESUNDHEITSORGANISATION VERSAGT MAL WIEDER: DIESMAL CORONAVIRUS

Letzte Woche, während des Weltwirtschaftsforums in Davos, konnte man den Generaldirektor der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noch lachend und entspannt über die Davoser Promenade schlendern sehen. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt sah die WHO noch keine internationale Gefahr in dem chinesischen Coronavirus. Trotz Berichten aus China von rapide ansteigenden Ansteckungen und Unklarheit darüber, wie offen die kommunistische Regierung in Peking mit den wirklichen Zahlen umgeht, gab sich der Chef der Genfer Behörde entspannt.

Mittlerweile hat die WHO ihre ursprüngliche Einschätzung der Lage revidiert. So wird nun weltweit von einem hohen Risiko ausgegangen. Geschichte scheint sich hier wieder einmal zu wiederholen, schon 2014 reagierte die WHO mit monaten Verzögerung beim Ausbruch des tödlichen Ebolavirus in Westafrika.

Die wichtigste Aufgabe der WHO sollte in der internationalen Bekämpfung von Epidemien gesehen werden. Doch leider verbringt sie zu viel Zeit mit Konferenzen und thematischen Auseinandersetzungen in ganz anderen Bereichen.

Nächste Woche tagt der geschäftsführende Vorstand der WHO vom 3. bis 8. Februar in Genf. Anstelle sich nun wirklich auf die wichtigsten Themen zu konzentrieren, wie zum Beispiel eine zeitnahe und fehlerfreie Antwort auf den sich ausbreitenden Coronavirus, zeigt die Tagesordnung dieser Sitzung, wie die Behörde Zeit und Steuergelder mit peripheren Themen verschwendet.

Die Tagesordnung verbringt eine ganze erste Seite mit Reformvorschlägen für Gesundheitssysteme hin zu universellen Krankenkassen. Solche Themen sollten zwar eher Teil von Innenpolitik sein, die WHO scheint aber ideologische Grabenkämpfe wichtiger zu finden als die globale Bekämpfung von Killerviren.

Auf den hinteren Seiten der Tagesordnung findet sich dann neben “gesundem Altern” und der “Renovierung der WHO Zentrale” auch ein Krisenplan für globale Pandemien.

Bevor es zu Krisenbewältigung auf der Agenda kommt, wird es wahrscheinlich erstmal einige Tage und die Bekämpfung von Patenten und geistigem Eigentum gehen. In den letzten Jahren hat sich die WHO zu einem zentralen Sprachrohr gegen Innovation und Privatwirtschaft gemausert. Die Verwässerung und langsame Abschaffung von Patenten auf Medikamenten sieht die WHO als bestes Mittel um steigende Gesundheitskosten zu verhindern. Dass Einfuhrzölle und Verbrauchssteuern auf Medikamente gerade in Schwellenländern oft 40% des Preises ausmachen, erwähnt die WHO lieber nicht. Allein in China geben Patienten über 5 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr nur für Zölle auf importierte Medikamente aus. Gerade in Zeiten eines massiven Virusausbruchs sollten solche unethischen Steuern in Frage gestellt werden.

Es war auch die Privatwirtschaft die parallel vier unterschiedliche Ebolaimpfstoffe in den letzten Jahren schnell und effektiv entwickelt hat. Ähnliches wird nun beim Coronavirus benötigt. Die Strategie der WHO Anreize bei der Medikamentenentwicklung zu entfernen könnte extrem negative Auswirkungen für die Weltbevölkerung haben.

Es wäre dem WHO Vorstand zu raten, sich weniger mit der Verschönerung seiner Büroräume auszusetzen, sondern eher mit der sofortigen Antwort auf massive Bedrohungen für die weltweite Gesundheit und globale Handelsströme, wie Ebola und das Coronavirus. Mit einem Budget von 2 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr und über 10% davon für Reisekosten veranschlagt, muss sich die WHO die berechtigte Frage stellen, ob die Behörde nicht massiv geschrumpft und auf ihre Kernaufgaben ausgerichtet werden muss.

Selbst als Befürworter des schlanken Staates sollte man die Notwendigkeit eines internationalen Koordinierungs- und Aktivierungsorgans im Bereich transnationale Epidemien sehen. Leider kommt die WHO dieser Aufgabe nur wenig nach.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The World Health Organization fails us again: This time Coronavirus

Fred Roeder, Health Economist and Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center

Last week when visiting Davos during the World Economic Forum, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, casually walked down the main street of the small alpine town without a worry in his face. At that moment, his organization saw  no international threat in the Chinese-originating coronavirus. This was despite worrying reports from China and questionable legitimacy of the official numbers provided by the Chinese Communist government.

Since then, the WHO has apologized and corrected their initial assessment. The virus is now seen as a high risk to the East Asian region and globally. 

History is repeating itself once more During the Ebola crisis in West Africa in 2014, it took the WHO months to finally declare an emergency. They were too tied up in fighting non-communicable diseases. 

The most important task, and the founding reason, of the WHO should be combating international diseases and coordination of rapid crisis responses. But unfortunately the Geneva-based agency spends much of its time with topics such as road safety, secondhand smoke, vaping, and the renovation of their own offices.

Next week the body’s executive board will convene from February 3rd-8th. Instead of revamping their agenda and fully focusing on how to contain the coronavirus, the current agenda prioritizes many other points before dealing with an international crisis response.

While our taxes should be spent on keeping us safe from this virus, the WHO’s board will instead spend the first couple of days discussing ideological ideas of universal healthcare reforms in emerging markets and how to limit patents of pharmaceutical companies. This is apparently more important for an agency that spends 10% of its 2 billion annual budget than figuring out how to effectively combat killer viruses. 

Once you scroll down the agenda of the meeting, you will finally find crisis response next to topics such as ‘aging in health’ and ‘renovation of the WHO Headquarters’.

So instead of putting the very real and scary threat of the Coronavirus first, the board members will prioritize how to limit incentives for the private sector to come up with treatments and vaccinations for the virus. Scrapping patents and limiting intellectual property rights are key pillars of the WHO’s priorities these days. Limiting patents is seen as a solution to curb health costs in emerging markets. For the international governmental organization, this seems to be an easier way than actually calling out their member states who often increase drug prices by 10-40% through import taxes and sales taxes paid by patients.

Chinese patients alone pay over 5 billion dollars a year on tariffs for drugs they import. In times of a massive health crisis in China, the WHO should urge the Chinese government to drop all of these tariffs momentarily.

After the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the private sector quickly reacted and several companies developed and delivered Ebola-vaccines at the same time. Now we need a similarly quick response for the coronavirus. Therefore, the WHO should not limit the innovative potential of the pharmaceutical industry but encourage them to invest in finding vaccines.

The coronavirus has already taken too many human lives and the situation will worsen. International trade and the global economy can also easily take a massive hit from a worsening situation. Instead of debating how to make the WHO’s offices better looking for natural light, its board should focus 100% on how to contain and combat the coronavirus. That’s priority number one.

Over and over, we see how the WHO fails to respond in an accurate and timely manner to such pandemics. It is high time for the agency to focus on its core mission: Protecting us from trans-national diseases.

Scroll to top
en_USEN